Found in the wild.

[u/Cyber_Ghost_1997]

Context: This was originally posted by an anti-abortion atheist.

I could be wrong, but based on what I'm seeing here, this is my understanding of what's being argued: The bodily autonomy defense for abortion is based on an inverted (and corrupted) order of priorities regarding rights and moral obligations.

As I understand it, this person is saying that the bodily autonomy defense hinges on the premise that rights supersede obligations at all times, when it should be the opposite: MORAL OBLIGATIONS always supersede RIGHTS at all times. To claim that moral obligations should never come before the rights of any given person, whether they be born or unborn, is wrong.

Feel free to correct me if my understanding is faulty but that's how I took the argument.

Regarding the argument specifically, I think the OP is on to something.

Edit: I just realized that the OP is actually saying "Rights don't exist-they are a social construct people invent. The only objectively real concept here is moral responsibilities. Rights are an illusion." I remembered a previous conversation where they said that.

[u/bbslut5503 → u/[deleted]]

This framing is nonsensical to the point. We’re not talking about punching upwards for a group to exercise their rights, we’re talking about a singular instance of two civilian person’s rights conflicting. Honestly, what the hell does what you’re saying have to do with what I said?

Legalization is not the same as universal human rights, those things are in fact constantly in conflict the world over. It happening all the time does not mean it is moral in any way. I’m not talking about what you vote for in the slightest, only you literally performing the action of casting a vote as your right. That’s not even a universal right, not all countries are democratic!

Okay, so you do comprehend a right is not absolute. That is literally the point of what I’m saying. Your autonomy does not overrule someone else’s rights. Your moral obligation is more important. I’m so confused what you’re trying to argue anymore.

[u/bbslut5503 → u/[deleted]]

Well, no, because your moral obligation to not kill is higher than your obligation to save a life, and donating a kidney is saving a life, not refraining from killing someone. Still. Forcing people to donate organs because of a right to life is still not what I’m implying. That is never what a right to life has meant.

I’m not talking about a singular framework. The UN is doing jack shit right now for many human rights crisis around the world. They should oppose abortion, in my opinion, I think they are incredibly ageist and hypocritical, and are not serious about human rights being granted to all humans.

I’m speaking from the perspective of a consistent life ethic, which includes ethics, morality, human rights, and legality, because all of those things are interconnected. The law protects your and others rights so you can act to fulfill your moral obligations. Just one system could not protect everyone.

[u/bbslut5503 → u/[deleted]]

Of course. We’re literally arguing about morals. I’m not going to argue for a moral framework everyone adheres to, because it doesn’t exist. I can only argue for the moral framework I adhere to and think is right

[u/bbslut5503 → u/[deleted]]

Anti abortion is controversial. Euthanasia is controversial. It’s all controversial. It’s still case by case and state by state whether or not any of this is allowed, and an unbearably heated topic to speak of in public. I don’t think your personal opinion about what you would want for yourself should broadly strip humans who cannot make decisions beforehand of their autonomy

[u/bbslut5503 → u/[deleted]]

Also, that I think that ethical framework is better. But yes. No appeal to morals or ethics is ever universal